You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to commons-dev@ws.apache.org by Jochen Wiedmann <jo...@gmail.com> on 2006/08/18 13:21:20 UTC
IDE specific files
Eran Chintaka wrote:
> 1. There are lot of non-eclipse users who are checking out/in code (FYI
> : most of the axiom devs are *not* using eclipse). So why bother we
> checking out eclipse junk :)
Are you telling me, it disturbs you to have two additional files and a
folder, which are most possibly even hidden because of the .foo
convention?
> 2. As Ajith also had already mentioned, maven helps you to generate the
> relevant IDE specific stuff.
It does. However, the output of the plugins is far from acceptable. In
particular, the output folders will rarely match.
Besides, there's more to it: Compiler settings (which should obviously
match those from the pom), formatting guidelines, and the like. These
aren't controlled by any plugin.
> 3. Some one can declare a variable in Eclipse, pointing to his folder
> and can accidentally commit that in to svn.
The files I have committed do not use any variables.
> 4. If some one is having a customized version of .project and .classpath
> files, they always gets conflicts, which is un-necessary, IMO.
IMO, that's a question of discipline. And, if it actually happens:
What prevents you from revoking or overwriting a commit?
> 5. None or most of the WS project do not have IDE specific committed so
> far. Eg : Axis2, axiom, neethi, etc.,
JaxMe, XML-RPC, and ws-commons-util do. :-)
The point I am trying to make is that IDE specific files can be good
for some people. If they proove to be disturbing the projects work,
then I'd be the first to remove it. But so far I can only see a "we
don't like it" and no "look at this example, it has really done harm".
Which matches my personal experience with other projects.
Jochen
--
My wife Mary and I have been married for forty-seven years and not
once have we had an argument serious enough to consider divorce;
murder, yes, but divorce, never.
(Jack Benny)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@ws.apache.org
Re: IDE specific files
Posted by Afkham Azeez <af...@gmail.com>.
If there is going to be a vote, I'm +1 for *not* including any IDE specific
files in th SVN repo, since having those in the repo unneccesarilly
complicate things.
Azeez
On 8/18/06, Eran Chinthaka <ch...@opensource.lk> wrote:
>
> Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
> > Eran Chintaka wrote:
> >
> >> 1. There are lot of non-eclipse users who are checking out/in code (FYI
> >> : most of the axiom devs are *not* using eclipse). So why bother we
> >> checking out eclipse junk :)
> >
> > Are you telling me, it disturbs you to have two additional files and a
> > folder, which are most possibly even hidden because of the .foo
> > convention?
>
> Come on this is not a valid argument. Do we put anything here as they
> are not visible and just few files? Its a question of whether we need
> them or not.
>
> >
> >
> >> 2. As Ajith also had already mentioned, maven helps you to generate the
> >> relevant IDE specific stuff.
> >
> > It does. However, the output of the plugins is far from acceptable. In
> > particular, the output folders will rarely match.
>
> Customizing them to your needs is that particular users problem. What
> sort of developers are you expecting here. Do you think they don't have
> the ability even to setup the project?
>
> >
> > Besides, there's more to it: Compiler settings (which should obviously
> > match those from the pom), formatting guidelines, and the like. These
> > aren't controlled by any plugin.
>
> I agree with this. But the option is not to commit IDE specific stuff
> here, rather to go and improve the relevant maven plugins.
>
> >
> >
> >> 3. Some one can declare a variable in Eclipse, pointing to his folder
> >> and can accidentally commit that in to svn.
> >
> > The files I have committed do not use any variables.
>
> No you didn't get my point. Having got the .project file from the svn,
> one might change it locally, adding variables, jdk locations. etc. The
> problem comes when it is committed to the code base.
>
> >
> >
> >> 4. If some one is having a customized version of .project and
> .classpath
> >> files, they always gets conflicts, which is un-necessary, IMO.
> >
> > IMO, that's a question of discipline. And, if it actually happens:
> > What prevents you from revoking or overwriting a commit?
>
> Again, you didn't get the point. I can remember Jeremy complained about
> this in commons-dev [1].
>
> >
> > The point I am trying to make is that IDE specific files can be good
> > for some people. If they proove to be disturbing the projects work,
> > then I'd be the first to remove it. But so far I can only see a "we
> > don't like it" and no "look at this example, it has really done harm".
> > Which matches my personal experience with other projects.
>
> Please look at [1]. That will show you that its not that I don't like
> it, but its a problem.
>
> BTW, if this is not settling up, I'd like to call for a vote on this.
>
>
> Thanks,
> Chinthaka
>
> [1] :
>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/ws-commons-dev/200608.mbox/ajax/%3cadbf02b10608110549h5fa34008jcea3a1ce71af4ef2@mail.gmail.com%3e
>
>
>
>
--
Thanks
Afkham Azeez
Re: IDE specific files
Posted by Jeremy Hughes <hu...@apache.org>.
Since my name has been mentioned I feel obliged to wade in :-) ...
On 8/18/06, Eran Chinthaka <ch...@opensource.lk> wrote:
> Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
> > Eran Chintaka wrote:
> >
> >> 1. There are lot of non-eclipse users who are checking out/in code (FYI
> >> : most of the axiom devs are *not* using eclipse). So why bother we
> >> checking out eclipse junk :)
> >
> > Are you telling me, it disturbs you to have two additional files and a
> > folder, which are most possibly even hidden because of the .foo
> > convention?
>
> Come on this is not a valid argument. Do we put anything here as they
> are not visible and just few files? Its a question of whether we need
> them or not.
Sounds like Jochen needs them and it makes his life easier - lower
barrier to setting up the project in Eclipse. If it makes Jochen's
life easier it would make it easier for casual users (aka potential
contributors) who happen to check out the code. If it's easy to check
out and compile straight out of SVN then they might be more likely to
stay. Before this discussion sinks into arguments about "well if they
can't get past setting up eclipse what use are they as a contributor"
which might lead to "alright lets make it really hard to set up a
development environment so we only get clever contributors". We're
talking about inclusivity and community development (which I'm sure
none of us disagree with) ... So perhaps to draw this to a conclusion
by putting in IDE specific files - we should think what is the net
effect on our community committers and other developers as well as
affect it has on bringing in new developers. ... I guess we all have
our own opinions here.
>
> >
> >
> >> 2. As Ajith also had already mentioned, maven helps you to generate the
> >> relevant IDE specific stuff.
> >
> > It does. However, the output of the plugins is far from acceptable. In
> > particular, the output folders will rarely match.
>
> Customizing them to your needs is that particular users problem. What
> sort of developers are you expecting here. Do you think they don't have
> the ability even to setup the project?
>
> >
> > Besides, there's more to it: Compiler settings (which should obviously
> > match those from the pom), formatting guidelines, and the like. These
> > aren't controlled by any plugin.
>
> I agree with this. But the option is not to commit IDE specific stuff
> here, rather to go and improve the relevant maven plugins.
>
> >
> >
> >> 3. Some one can declare a variable in Eclipse, pointing to his folder
> >> and can accidentally commit that in to svn.
> >
> > The files I have committed do not use any variables.
>
> No you didn't get my point. Having got the .project file from the svn,
> one might change it locally, adding variables, jdk locations. etc. The
> problem comes when it is committed to the code base.
>
> >
> >
> >> 4. If some one is having a customized version of .project and .classpath
> >> files, they always gets conflicts, which is un-necessary, IMO.
> >
> > IMO, that's a question of discipline. And, if it actually happens:
> > What prevents you from revoking or overwriting a commit?
>
> Again, you didn't get the point. I can remember Jeremy complained about
> this in commons-dev [1].
I was complaining about just the .project file ...
>
> >
> > The point I am trying to make is that IDE specific files can be good
> > for some people. If they proove to be disturbing the projects work,
> > then I'd be the first to remove it. But so far I can only see a "we
> > don't like it" and no "look at this example, it has really done harm".
> > Which matches my personal experience with other projects.
>
> Please look at [1]. That will show you that its not that I don't like
> it, but its a problem.
I agree with Jochen on this - remove it if it causes harm. But saying
that the .project was causing me harm even if it was less harm than a
paper cut :-)
I use Eclipse and there are some 'best practices' (whether they are
written down or not I don't know) but for us in Woden it goes like
this: use Eclipse variables in the .classpath then the barrier to
buildling the project in Eclipse is lowered to: "set this Eclipse
variable to where you have xyz installed".
Just to recap the .project file problem: if my .project file needs to
be different to the one on SVN (maybe I have called my project
something different) then when I do an Eclipse 'Team->Synchronize' the
.project file is out of sync. I can't add an svn:ignore for .project
because it is already in the SVN repo. In any case, whenever you
create a java project in Eclipse it creates a valid .project file for
you. So unless I've missed something about what should be going in
everybody's .project file ... something which would be easier if it
were on the server rather than having to set it up every time you
check the project out ... then I think .project should be excluded
from SVN. From a selfish point of view I'm +1 for having .classpath in
SVN ... if it causes others more harm than it does good then I'd
reconsider.
>
> BTW, if this is not settling up, I'd like to call for a vote on this.
IMO there's two decisions: do we allow IDE specific files, then if
yes: which ones.
What is the scope of this decision. The maximum scope we can decide on
this list (I guess) is the ws-commons project ... does anyone feel
strongly enough to push this up to general@ws.a.o. Alternatively we
could just apply the decision to XmlSchema - but since we're applying
so much energy to this why not open it up to all?
Cheers,
Jeremy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@ws.apache.org
Re: IDE specific files
Posted by Eran Chinthaka <ch...@opensource.lk>.
Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
> Eran Chintaka wrote:
>
>> 1. There are lot of non-eclipse users who are checking out/in code (FYI
>> : most of the axiom devs are *not* using eclipse). So why bother we
>> checking out eclipse junk :)
>
> Are you telling me, it disturbs you to have two additional files and a
> folder, which are most possibly even hidden because of the .foo
> convention?
Come on this is not a valid argument. Do we put anything here as they
are not visible and just few files? Its a question of whether we need
them or not.
>
>
>> 2. As Ajith also had already mentioned, maven helps you to generate the
>> relevant IDE specific stuff.
>
> It does. However, the output of the plugins is far from acceptable. In
> particular, the output folders will rarely match.
Customizing them to your needs is that particular users problem. What
sort of developers are you expecting here. Do you think they don't have
the ability even to setup the project?
>
> Besides, there's more to it: Compiler settings (which should obviously
> match those from the pom), formatting guidelines, and the like. These
> aren't controlled by any plugin.
I agree with this. But the option is not to commit IDE specific stuff
here, rather to go and improve the relevant maven plugins.
>
>
>> 3. Some one can declare a variable in Eclipse, pointing to his folder
>> and can accidentally commit that in to svn.
>
> The files I have committed do not use any variables.
No you didn't get my point. Having got the .project file from the svn,
one might change it locally, adding variables, jdk locations. etc. The
problem comes when it is committed to the code base.
>
>
>> 4. If some one is having a customized version of .project and .classpath
>> files, they always gets conflicts, which is un-necessary, IMO.
>
> IMO, that's a question of discipline. And, if it actually happens:
> What prevents you from revoking or overwriting a commit?
Again, you didn't get the point. I can remember Jeremy complained about
this in commons-dev [1].
>
> The point I am trying to make is that IDE specific files can be good
> for some people. If they proove to be disturbing the projects work,
> then I'd be the first to remove it. But so far I can only see a "we
> don't like it" and no "look at this example, it has really done harm".
> Which matches my personal experience with other projects.
Please look at [1]. That will show you that its not that I don't like
it, but its a problem.
BTW, if this is not settling up, I'd like to call for a vote on this.
Thanks,
Chinthaka
[1] :
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/ws-commons-dev/200608.mbox/ajax/%3cadbf02b10608110549h5fa34008jcea3a1ce71af4ef2@mail.gmail.com%3e
Re: IDE specific files
Posted by Chamikara Jayalath <ch...@gmail.com>.
Hi All,
I had a customized versions of .classpath and it seems te be giving a
conflict to me. I also belive that IDE specific files should not be included
in the SVN repo.
So +1 for removing those.
Chamikara
On 8/23/06, Afkham Azeez <af...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Me too. +1 to NOT having any IDE specific files in the code repository.
>
> On 8/23/06, Deepal jayasinghe <de...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Eran Chinthaka wrote:
> >
> > >Any action item on this? I can still see .project files in the svn.
> > >
> > >Do we wanna move that to a separate folder as Dennis suggested or wanna
> > >completely remove them?
> > >
> > >
> > +1 to completely remove IDE related files.
> >
> > >-- Chinthaka
> > >
> > >Afkham Azeez wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >>IMHO the codebase is going to get cluttered with so may IDE specific
> > files
> > >>of different IDEs if users who use several IDEs (IDEA, JBuilder,
> > JDeveloper
> > >>etc, etc.) all start committing their IDE specific files. So as a
> > general
> > >>practice, it is better not to commit IDE specific files.
> > >>
> > >>Azeez
> > >>
> > >>On 8/18/06, Jochen Wiedmann <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>Eran Chintaka wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>>1. There are lot of non-eclipse users who are checking out/in code
> > (FYI
> > >>>>: most of the axiom devs are *not* using eclipse). So why bother we
> > >>>>checking out eclipse junk :)
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>Are you telling me, it disturbs you to have two additional files and
> a
> > >>>folder, which are most possibly even hidden because of the .foo
> > >>>convention?
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>>2. As Ajith also had already mentioned, maven helps you to generate
> > the
> > >>>>relevant IDE specific stuff.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>It does. However, the output of the plugins is far from acceptable.
> In
> > >>>particular, the output folders will rarely match.
> > >>>
> > >>>Besides, there's more to it: Compiler settings (which should
> obviously
> > >>>match those from the pom), formatting guidelines, and the like. These
> > >>>aren't controlled by any plugin.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>>3. Some one can declare a variable in Eclipse, pointing to his
> folder
> > >>>>and can accidentally commit that in to svn.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>The files I have committed do not use any variables.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>>4. If some one is having a customized version of .project and
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>.classpath
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>>files, they always gets conflicts, which is un-necessary, IMO.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>IMO, that's a question of discipline. And, if it actually happens:
> > >>>What prevents you from revoking or overwriting a commit?
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>>5. None or most of the WS project do not have IDE specific committed
> > so
> > >>>>far. Eg : Axis2, axiom, neethi, etc.,
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>JaxMe, XML-RPC, and ws-commons-util do. :-)
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>The point I am trying to make is that IDE specific files can be good
> > >>>for some people. If they proove to be disturbing the projects work,
> > >>>then I'd be the first to remove it. But so far I can only see a "we
> > >>>don't like it" and no "look at this example, it has really done
> harm".
> > >>>Which matches my personal experience with other projects.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>Jochen
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>--
> > >>>My wife Mary and I have been married for forty-seven years and not
> > >>>once have we had an argument serious enough to consider divorce;
> > >>>murder, yes, but divorce, never.
> > >>>(Jack Benny)
> > >>>
> > >>>---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >>>To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> > >>>For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@ws.apache.org
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > n~
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@ws.apache.org
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Thanks
> Afkham Azeez
>
>
Re: IDE specific files
Posted by Saminda Abeyruwan <sa...@opensource.lk>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
If the project would have IDE specific files, that would lead to
uncontrollable filtering, when building src and bin distributions and so
on. Besides mvn/maven ability to build the correct project files
(single/multiproject) would cover the (+90%) case. +1 NOT to put IDE
specific files.
Saminda
Afkham Azeez wrote:
> Me too. +1 to NOT having any IDE specific files in the code repository.
>
> On 8/23/06, Deepal jayasinghe <de...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Eran Chinthaka wrote:
>>
>> >Any action item on this? I can still see .project files in the svn.
>> >
>> >Do we wanna move that to a separate folder as Dennis suggested or wanna
>> >completely remove them?
>> >
>> >
>> +1 to completely remove IDE related files.
>>
>> >-- Chinthaka
>> >
>> >Afkham Azeez wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >>IMHO the codebase is going to get cluttered with so may IDE specific
>> files
>> >>of different IDEs if users who use several IDEs (IDEA, JBuilder,
>> JDeveloper
>> >>etc, etc.) all start committing their IDE specific files. So as a
>> general
>> >>practice, it is better not to commit IDE specific files.
>> >>
>> >>Azeez
>> >>
>> >>On 8/18/06, Jochen Wiedmann <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>>Eran Chintaka wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>>1. There are lot of non-eclipse users who are checking out/in code
>> (FYI
>> >>>>: most of the axiom devs are *not* using eclipse). So why bother we
>> >>>>checking out eclipse junk :)
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>Are you telling me, it disturbs you to have two additional files and a
>> >>>folder, which are most possibly even hidden because of the .foo
>> >>>convention?
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>>2. As Ajith also had already mentioned, maven helps you to generate
>> the
>> >>>>relevant IDE specific stuff.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>It does. However, the output of the plugins is far from acceptable. In
>> >>>particular, the output folders will rarely match.
>> >>>
>> >>>Besides, there's more to it: Compiler settings (which should obviously
>> >>>match those from the pom), formatting guidelines, and the like. These
>> >>>aren't controlled by any plugin.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>>3. Some one can declare a variable in Eclipse, pointing to his folder
>> >>>>and can accidentally commit that in to svn.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>The files I have committed do not use any variables.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>>4. If some one is having a customized version of .project and
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>.classpath
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>>files, they always gets conflicts, which is un-necessary, IMO.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>IMO, that's a question of discipline. And, if it actually happens:
>> >>>What prevents you from revoking or overwriting a commit?
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>>5. None or most of the WS project do not have IDE specific committed
>> so
>> >>>>far. Eg : Axis2, axiom, neethi, etc.,
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>JaxMe, XML-RPC, and ws-commons-util do. :-)
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>The point I am trying to make is that IDE specific files can be good
>> >>>for some people. If they proove to be disturbing the projects work,
>> >>>then I'd be the first to remove it. But so far I can only see a "we
>> >>>don't like it" and no "look at this example, it has really done harm".
>> >>>Which matches my personal experience with other projects.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>Jochen
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>--
>> >>>My wife Mary and I have been married for forty-seven years and not
>> >>>once have we had an argument serious enough to consider divorce;
>> >>>murder, yes, but divorce, never.
>> >>>(Jack Benny)
>> >>>
>> >>>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >>>To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
>> >>>For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@ws.apache.org
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> n~
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@ws.apache.org
>>
>>
>
>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFE7BzkYmklbLuW6wYRAoYDAKCrJe9gwylQpS791Lgz3hVAn9cMYQCfRjDM
iUjXJ8285ReBxdTS7PBO8Ic=
=qnMt
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@ws.apache.org
Re: IDE specific files
Posted by Afkham Azeez <af...@gmail.com>.
Me too. +1 to NOT having any IDE specific files in the code repository.
On 8/23/06, Deepal jayasinghe <de...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Eran Chinthaka wrote:
>
> >Any action item on this? I can still see .project files in the svn.
> >
> >Do we wanna move that to a separate folder as Dennis suggested or wanna
> >completely remove them?
> >
> >
> +1 to completely remove IDE related files.
>
> >-- Chinthaka
> >
> >Afkham Azeez wrote:
> >
> >
> >>IMHO the codebase is going to get cluttered with so may IDE specific
> files
> >>of different IDEs if users who use several IDEs (IDEA, JBuilder,
> JDeveloper
> >>etc, etc.) all start committing their IDE specific files. So as a
> general
> >>practice, it is better not to commit IDE specific files.
> >>
> >>Azeez
> >>
> >>On 8/18/06, Jochen Wiedmann <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Eran Chintaka wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>1. There are lot of non-eclipse users who are checking out/in code
> (FYI
> >>>>: most of the axiom devs are *not* using eclipse). So why bother we
> >>>>checking out eclipse junk :)
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>Are you telling me, it disturbs you to have two additional files and a
> >>>folder, which are most possibly even hidden because of the .foo
> >>>convention?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>2. As Ajith also had already mentioned, maven helps you to generate
> the
> >>>>relevant IDE specific stuff.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>It does. However, the output of the plugins is far from acceptable. In
> >>>particular, the output folders will rarely match.
> >>>
> >>>Besides, there's more to it: Compiler settings (which should obviously
> >>>match those from the pom), formatting guidelines, and the like. These
> >>>aren't controlled by any plugin.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>3. Some one can declare a variable in Eclipse, pointing to his folder
> >>>>and can accidentally commit that in to svn.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>The files I have committed do not use any variables.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>4. If some one is having a customized version of .project and
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>.classpath
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>files, they always gets conflicts, which is un-necessary, IMO.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>IMO, that's a question of discipline. And, if it actually happens:
> >>>What prevents you from revoking or overwriting a commit?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>5. None or most of the WS project do not have IDE specific committed
> so
> >>>>far. Eg : Axis2, axiom, neethi, etc.,
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>JaxMe, XML-RPC, and ws-commons-util do. :-)
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>The point I am trying to make is that IDE specific files can be good
> >>>for some people. If they proove to be disturbing the projects work,
> >>>then I'd be the first to remove it. But so far I can only see a "we
> >>>don't like it" and no "look at this example, it has really done harm".
> >>>Which matches my personal experience with other projects.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Jochen
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>--
> >>>My wife Mary and I have been married for forty-seven years and not
> >>>once have we had an argument serious enough to consider divorce;
> >>>murder, yes, but divorce, never.
> >>>(Jack Benny)
> >>>
> >>>---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> >>>For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@ws.apache.org
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> n~
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@ws.apache.org
>
>
--
Thanks
Afkham Azeez
Re: IDE specific files
Posted by Deepal jayasinghe <de...@gmail.com>.
Eran Chinthaka wrote:
>Any action item on this? I can still see .project files in the svn.
>
>Do we wanna move that to a separate folder as Dennis suggested or wanna
>completely remove them?
>
>
+1 to completely remove IDE related files.
>-- Chinthaka
>
>Afkham Azeez wrote:
>
>
>>IMHO the codebase is going to get cluttered with so may IDE specific files
>>of different IDEs if users who use several IDEs (IDEA, JBuilder, JDeveloper
>>etc, etc.) all start committing their IDE specific files. So as a general
>>practice, it is better not to commit IDE specific files.
>>
>>Azeez
>>
>>On 8/18/06, Jochen Wiedmann <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Eran Chintaka wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>1. There are lot of non-eclipse users who are checking out/in code (FYI
>>>>: most of the axiom devs are *not* using eclipse). So why bother we
>>>>checking out eclipse junk :)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Are you telling me, it disturbs you to have two additional files and a
>>>folder, which are most possibly even hidden because of the .foo
>>>convention?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>2. As Ajith also had already mentioned, maven helps you to generate the
>>>>relevant IDE specific stuff.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>It does. However, the output of the plugins is far from acceptable. In
>>>particular, the output folders will rarely match.
>>>
>>>Besides, there's more to it: Compiler settings (which should obviously
>>>match those from the pom), formatting guidelines, and the like. These
>>>aren't controlled by any plugin.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>3. Some one can declare a variable in Eclipse, pointing to his folder
>>>>and can accidentally commit that in to svn.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>The files I have committed do not use any variables.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>4. If some one is having a customized version of .project and
>>>>
>>>>
>>>.classpath
>>>
>>>
>>>>files, they always gets conflicts, which is un-necessary, IMO.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>IMO, that's a question of discipline. And, if it actually happens:
>>>What prevents you from revoking or overwriting a commit?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>5. None or most of the WS project do not have IDE specific committed so
>>>>far. Eg : Axis2, axiom, neethi, etc.,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>JaxMe, XML-RPC, and ws-commons-util do. :-)
>>>
>>>
>>>The point I am trying to make is that IDE specific files can be good
>>>for some people. If they proove to be disturbing the projects work,
>>>then I'd be the first to remove it. But so far I can only see a "we
>>>don't like it" and no "look at this example, it has really done harm".
>>>Which matches my personal experience with other projects.
>>>
>>>
>>>Jochen
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>--
>>>My wife Mary and I have been married for forty-seven years and not
>>>once have we had an argument serious enough to consider divorce;
>>>murder, yes, but divorce, never.
>>>(Jack Benny)
>>>
>>>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
>>>For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@ws.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
n~
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@ws.apache.org
Re: IDE specific files
Posted by Eran Chinthaka <ch...@opensource.lk>.
Any action item on this? I can still see .project files in the svn.
Do we wanna move that to a separate folder as Dennis suggested or wanna
completely remove them?
-- Chinthaka
Afkham Azeez wrote:
> IMHO the codebase is going to get cluttered with so may IDE specific files
> of different IDEs if users who use several IDEs (IDEA, JBuilder, JDeveloper
> etc, etc.) all start committing their IDE specific files. So as a general
> practice, it is better not to commit IDE specific files.
>
> Azeez
>
> On 8/18/06, Jochen Wiedmann <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Eran Chintaka wrote:
>>
>> > 1. There are lot of non-eclipse users who are checking out/in code (FYI
>> > : most of the axiom devs are *not* using eclipse). So why bother we
>> > checking out eclipse junk :)
>>
>> Are you telling me, it disturbs you to have two additional files and a
>> folder, which are most possibly even hidden because of the .foo
>> convention?
>>
>>
>> > 2. As Ajith also had already mentioned, maven helps you to generate the
>> > relevant IDE specific stuff.
>>
>> It does. However, the output of the plugins is far from acceptable. In
>> particular, the output folders will rarely match.
>>
>> Besides, there's more to it: Compiler settings (which should obviously
>> match those from the pom), formatting guidelines, and the like. These
>> aren't controlled by any plugin.
>>
>>
>> > 3. Some one can declare a variable in Eclipse, pointing to his folder
>> > and can accidentally commit that in to svn.
>>
>> The files I have committed do not use any variables.
>>
>>
>> > 4. If some one is having a customized version of .project and
>> .classpath
>> > files, they always gets conflicts, which is un-necessary, IMO.
>>
>> IMO, that's a question of discipline. And, if it actually happens:
>> What prevents you from revoking or overwriting a commit?
>>
>>
>> > 5. None or most of the WS project do not have IDE specific committed so
>> > far. Eg : Axis2, axiom, neethi, etc.,
>>
>> JaxMe, XML-RPC, and ws-commons-util do. :-)
>>
>>
>> The point I am trying to make is that IDE specific files can be good
>> for some people. If they proove to be disturbing the projects work,
>> then I'd be the first to remove it. But so far I can only see a "we
>> don't like it" and no "look at this example, it has really done harm".
>> Which matches my personal experience with other projects.
>>
>>
>> Jochen
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> My wife Mary and I have been married for forty-seven years and not
>> once have we had an argument serious enough to consider divorce;
>> murder, yes, but divorce, never.
>> (Jack Benny)
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@ws.apache.org
>>
>>
>
>
Re: IDE specific files
Posted by Afkham Azeez <af...@gmail.com>.
IMHO the codebase is going to get cluttered with so may IDE specific files
of different IDEs if users who use several IDEs (IDEA, JBuilder, JDeveloper
etc, etc.) all start committing their IDE specific files. So as a general
practice, it is better not to commit IDE specific files.
Azeez
On 8/18/06, Jochen Wiedmann <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Eran Chintaka wrote:
>
> > 1. There are lot of non-eclipse users who are checking out/in code (FYI
> > : most of the axiom devs are *not* using eclipse). So why bother we
> > checking out eclipse junk :)
>
> Are you telling me, it disturbs you to have two additional files and a
> folder, which are most possibly even hidden because of the .foo
> convention?
>
>
> > 2. As Ajith also had already mentioned, maven helps you to generate the
> > relevant IDE specific stuff.
>
> It does. However, the output of the plugins is far from acceptable. In
> particular, the output folders will rarely match.
>
> Besides, there's more to it: Compiler settings (which should obviously
> match those from the pom), formatting guidelines, and the like. These
> aren't controlled by any plugin.
>
>
> > 3. Some one can declare a variable in Eclipse, pointing to his folder
> > and can accidentally commit that in to svn.
>
> The files I have committed do not use any variables.
>
>
> > 4. If some one is having a customized version of .project and .classpath
> > files, they always gets conflicts, which is un-necessary, IMO.
>
> IMO, that's a question of discipline. And, if it actually happens:
> What prevents you from revoking or overwriting a commit?
>
>
> > 5. None or most of the WS project do not have IDE specific committed so
> > far. Eg : Axis2, axiom, neethi, etc.,
>
> JaxMe, XML-RPC, and ws-commons-util do. :-)
>
>
> The point I am trying to make is that IDE specific files can be good
> for some people. If they proove to be disturbing the projects work,
> then I'd be the first to remove it. But so far I can only see a "we
> don't like it" and no "look at this example, it has really done harm".
> Which matches my personal experience with other projects.
>
>
> Jochen
>
>
>
> --
> My wife Mary and I have been married for forty-seven years and not
> once have we had an argument serious enough to consider divorce;
> murder, yes, but divorce, never.
> (Jack Benny)
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@ws.apache.org
>
>
--
Thanks
Afkham Azeez